In article >,
    (ANDREW ROZSA) wrote:
>Just to confuse the foreigners:
>
>  Sajnalom, de kave, az nincs!
>
Good, we coul go on with this:

Sajnalom, de kave sincs.


Szaszvari Peter
(http://iap11.ethz.ch/users/szp/szp.htm)

On 16 Jul 1996 13:30:36 GMT,  (Gyorgy
Kovacs) wrote:

>In article >,
>Lacko/Kohn > wrote:

>>If you want to say: I'm sorry, I don't have coffee.
>>
>>Margarita

>
>

>Sajnos nincs ka've'm.
>Sajnos ka've'm nincs.
>...."Sajnos" with "Sajna'lom,"   For "I am very sorry" replace "Sajnos" with
"Nagyon
>sajna'lom"
>
>If you want to say: "Sorry (I'm sorry, I'm very sorry), there is no coffe"
>than the end of the sentence is "nincs ka've'" and if want to express that you
>have other stuff but no coffee than "ka've' nincs".
>
>Did I leave out any other combinations? (Probably yes, but that's it for now.)
>GK

Just to confuse the foreigners:

  Sajnalom, de kave, az nincs!

> =============================================================
      Andrew J. Rozsa - Birmingham, Alabama, USA
 < OR >  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
          Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
> =============================================================

Zoltan,   You are talking about babbling. Gosh, what
would
                      you call your "essay" below? You sure have done your
                      share of babbling. I had a hard time staying awake
while
                      reading your blah, blah, blah......
                      And the X & Y story! How sweet of you to not wanting
to
                      name names, --     don't be so coy!
                      The "radical left-winger ideologist" label is used
very
                      freely by you, do you really know what it means? You
are
                      getting carried away. It does not fit X or Y at all.
                      Would you consider yourself a "radical right-winger
ideologist"?

                                          Regina V. Kalvary






You wrote all this :

From: Zoltan Szekely >
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 20:19:33 -0400
Message-ID: >

Who wrote this?

I promised you to discuss a little bit more these quotes of
a radical left-winger ideologist:

> "Withdrawal of tolerance from repressive movements before
> they can become active, intolerance EVEN TOWARD THOUGHT,
> OPINION AND WORD, and finally, intolerance in the opposite
> direction, that is toward the self-styled conservatives, to
> the political Right -- these ANTI-DEMOCRATIC notions respond
> to the actual development of the democratic society. (...)
> To be  sure, THIS IS CENSORSHIP, EVEN PRE-CENSORSHIP."
>
> "The tolerance (...) will never be gift of the powers that
> be; it can, under the prevailing conditions of tyranny by the
> majority, only be won by the sustained effort of RADICAL
> MINORITIES (...) -- minorities INTOLERANT, MILITANTLY
> INTOLERANT and disobedient to the rules of behavior which
> tolerate destruction and suppression."

YES, everyone was right who guessed these qoutes are from
Herbert Marcuse, the apostle of neo-marxism in the sixties
and seventies. (See eg. in Critical Sociology, edited by
Paul Converton, Penguin 1976, pages 320 and 328.)

I just found a very profound example for how to use these
ideological guidelines right here, on this discussion list.

So what follows here is THE EXAMPLE:

************************************************************
I don't want to call names. So let's name the 2 persons
involved in this example by X and Y.

X accused Y to be a nazi like this:
> But [Y] is a nazi! I spotted him as soon as I began reading the
> HIX publications more than two and a half years ago.
Is this really an accusation? Well, it seems to be. The
nazis killed a couple of million people and anybody called
to be a nazi is secretly said to be a potential mass
murderer. No question about it.

Let's see, how X explains his/her ardent accusations:
> The discussion centered
> around the Bolshevik revolution and I said something to the effect that
most
> likely the Bolshevik revolution would have taken place without the
outbreak
> of World War I. [Y] answered: the outbreak of the Bolshevik revolution
was
> decided when a Jewish banker loaned a few million dollars to Japan in
1904!
In another world, we see here, that Y maintained a highly
non-standard explanation regarding the outbreak of the Big
Bolshie Revolution in Russia in 1917. Maybe X found it a
"behavior which tolerates destruction and suppression." Why?
The hell knows. But X must have decided that Y tolerates
destruction and suppression by his views, because X
immediately withdrew tolerance from Y and showed up massive
"intolerance EVEN TOWARD THOUGHT, OPINION AND WORD".

See how X finishes his/her "proof":
> I immediately knew that I was talking to a man who ardently believes in
> international Jewish conspiracies.
That is Y "ardently believes in international Jewish conspiracies".
It is X's conclusion, just because Y has non-standard views
about a piece of history. Is it not ridiculous?

And also see the clear suggestion that X made about Y: Y
"believes in international Jewish conspiracies", therefore
Y is a nazi! Is it really that clear, that anybody that
"believes in international Jewish conspiracies" must be a
nazi, a potential mass murderer? I don't think so. And I
also doubt that non-standard views about the history
imply  "belief in international Jewish conspiracies". That's
just simple bullshit.

So what we reveal here is simply a kind of "INTOLERANT,
MILITANTLY INTOLERANT" bahavior from the side of X toward Y.
To be sure, this is not a behavior of a respected historian!
This is plain ideological babbling. Right on the track of
Mr. Marcuse.
***************************************************************

Take care,                                           Sz. Zoli

"Peter A. Soltesz" > wrote:
>
>Dear all:
>
>The correct is sajnos nincs kave!
>
>For those who like a quick explanation. The Hungarian language has
>word endings which determinie the action to be taken with the root word.

>For example -t (kavet) makes it possesive) meaning like give me coffee
>Kerek egy kavet (I would like coffee please).
>
>Other exmaples are:  rugd ide a labda-t (kick the ball here -- where the
root
>word for ball is labda).
>
>Similarly - asztal (table) asztal-t (the table), asztal-ra (onto the
table),
>asztal-rol (from the table), asztal-on (on the table), etc.
>
>In effect by saying nincs kavet is similar to saying we do not have the
a
>coffee (or the coffee) it certainly is incorrect.
>
Peter Soltesz

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Peter:

I'd have to disagree on this one, for the possesive has nothing to do
with it, rather the " t " stands for Objective Case in the Hungarian
grammar, which by the way most languages do not even have.

Dr. Laszlo

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Italian Autodidact ) wrote:

: Hi, I'm posting this article from Italy.

: I've just started learning  Hungarian as an auotdidact
: and I would like someone in this Newsgroup to help me
: with the following:

: Sajnos kave nincs / sajnos kavet nincs

: Which of the two sentences is correct??

: Thank you for your time.

Achille!

don't over-analyze this thing!

1. The hungarian word for coffee iz "k.v."
2. The noun ka've' stands as all nouns (e.g. vi'z, tej, pe'nz stb)
3. Possessive for nouns is with an "-m" (e.g. vi'zem, tejem, pe'nzem stb)
4. Dative for nouns is with a "-d" (e.g. vi'zed, tejed, pe'nzed stb)
5. Accusative for nouns is with a "-t" (e.g. vi'zet, tejet, pe'nzet stb)

so, you're close when you say "sajnos kavet nincs"
the correct way is to say "sajna'lom hogy kaved nincs"
which means: "i'm sorry you don't have any coffee"
in other words: "ke'rsz kavet?" = do you want coffee
or, "kaved nincs?" = you don't have coffee?
or, "kavet ke'rsz?" = do you want coffee?

it's ALL aglutinative, the distinction is betwixt the "-d" and the "-t"
your query makes more sense that way...

best... continue your studies

janos

At 08:22 PM 7/16/96 GMT, Agnes wrote:

>New subject:  I just learned last year that "csombor"is nothing less than
>oregano!  Did you guys/girls knew that?
>
        No, I didn't. Most interesting. I didn't even know that Hungarian
cuisine used oregano until this morning when I read a Transylvanian dish,
asking for "csombor." Needless to say, I skipped "csombor," although most
likely my intellectual curiosity should have kicked in, but it didn't. The
Hungarian dictionary says that "csombor" is Slavic and it is "folkish
[ne'pies]. Otherwise, apparently we call it "borsfu"." I have never heard of
that either.

        Eva Balogh

At 02:54 PM 7/16/96 -0500, NPA wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>For whom it was an ideal opportunity? For the Hungarians or for the
>>Communists?
>
>Communists? What communists? :-) You mean those young revolutionaries
>who were touched by the ideas of  the French Revolution, echoed  back
>from the past? Maybe, but 1848 for the Hungarians were a freedom fight!

        Please, read your original article in which you claim that the
League of Communists and Marx and Engels were responsible for the outbreak
of the 1848 revolutions. Please, also read George Antony's reply to it.

        Don't play the innocent here: someone who doesn't know what I am
talking about.

>And the last sentence: does it mean that although the
>Hungarian events were not orchestrated by the communists, they were
>influenced by the Viennese events and the Viennese events were
>influenced by the communists? So, in brief, indirectly the Hungarian
>revolution was influenced by the communists?
>
>The last assumption seems logical, and just as enlighten as a "kifli"
>and other food names. :-)

        And, again, read your answer to George Antony's piece--it clearly
indicates that somehow the Hungarian events were not influenced directly by
the League of Communists, but it had something to do with the outbreak of
the revolution in Vienna. So, one must assume that the Viennese revolution
must have (like all the others--according to you) something to do with this
marxist, communist conspiracy.

        Eva Balogh

*** W A R N I N G ***
****************************************************************************
****
The material below is in what some had identified as an objectionable and
incomprehensable style  -- mine (Tibor Benke).  If you do not want to
expose yourself to this, delete this message now!!!  (with apologies to
Fabos-Becker)
*******************************************************************************
*

At 2:34 p.m. 7/15/96 Eva Balogh wrote, quoting me:

>>. . . . The stuff that Rakosi did, was merely the last phase of
>>what Vajk/Steven started doing.
>>
>>And in context of the interminable "liberal-bolsi" versus "nep-nemzeti"
>>debate on FORUM,  I tried to point out the ironic circumstance that the
>>"Kereszteny Nep Nemzeti" (Chrishtian Nationalist People Oriented) faction
>>is now in the same side structuraly as Koppany and his party were then  --
>>wishing to keep local traditions, while their enemies imposed a
>>cosmopolitan order.  They lost, but in a way, they lost according to their
>>own rules.  But St. Steven won, as is acknowledged according to the royal
>>formula, "by the grace of God".  Unfortunately, he gained the power to
>>suppress a great many items from the pagan heritage.
>
>        I was afraid that this is what you meant! I find it incredible that
>such half-baked ideas surface time and time again: "out there" as well as on
>the HIX forums.

It is possible that my ideas are, as you say, "half baked", if you mean
that they are incomplete, not done.  But I am afraid, this was just another
put down.  On the other hand, it may also be true, that you only half
understood them, due to difficulties I needn't expand on again.


>If St. Stephen and his father Prince Geza didn't succeed in
>introducing Christianity you and I wouldn't be discussing the pros and cons
>of "Christian Nationalist Populist" versus "Cosmopolitan, Liberal, Urbanite"
>differences. We wouldn't be around. Hungary wouldn't be around, Hungarians
>wouldn't be around.

It is precisely here, that you miss my point.  The Christianity they
introduced was somewhat distorted by the time they introduced it and their
methods of introduction distorted it further.  It is a testimony to the
strength of the Christian formulas that some of the essential sense
remains to this day to be recovered by "those who have eyes to see and
those who have ears to hear", dispite it all.  Whether the forces that
plead it, also understand that, is more doubtful.

But I was not disputing whether the inposition of Christianity, or even the
adoption of the particular form of Roman as opposed to Byzintine
Christianity was the proper or inproper course of action for Geza and
Steven to take.  They were fortunate that they happenned to bet on the
right course, history seems to have proven them right.  That is what I
meant by the "Grace of God".

But their methods were theologically inncorrect, to say the least. A true
Christian would repent them.   What is more, even the results cannot be
counted an unambigious success.  The naivite with which the majority of
Hungarians adopted the ideas of Christendom lead to the relatively rapid
demise of the Arpad dynasty, as the ruling families that knew the game for
what it was, divided and weakened them.  Also, the role adopted as "bastion
of Western Civilization" cost dearly  and Western Civilization is not very
grateful, not  enough to deal with any of our concerns, such as the human
rights of those of us who live now as minorities in Moldova, Roumania,
Slovakia, little Yugoslavia, etc., nor with the economic disaster the
little dance between the aparatchiks and the IMF&WorldBank is taking the
country into.  And it remains to be seen whether they find an excuse to not
integrate us after all.  I have a bad feeling about "Partnership for Peace"
(Nesze semmi, fogd meg jol/  Here's nothin', grab it tight).

I study the Anthropology of Religion and the Sociology of Knowledge.  I
look at broad themes in the discourses -- the expressed thoughts and
beliefs - of peoples as they act in history from the point of view of
structure and function and proccess.  Christianity, as the central mythical
discourse of Western Civilization (so called) has certain themes, not all
of them precisely logically coherent.  Two of these are: 1) the theme of
the divinely chosen and/or begotten savior king (messiah/Jesus/Csaba?) and
2) the saved remnant.

Previous to this, religion seems to be merely a simple luck enhancement
procedure.  That is, a shaman is right if what he wants comes to be, a
leader is divinely ordained if he wins.  To the victor, belong the spoils,
(also something about dogs mating). At the level of social functioning,
this means that the looser should submit.  Mesopotamian Civilization and
later, Western Civilization as a whole, from the days of Sumer to the days
of Rome operated by these rules.

Judaism and Christianity introduced a new consideration.  Might was no
longer *neccessarily* right.  Evil was acknowledged to be occasionally
capable of winning in the short run; especially, if the Good (read, "our
group", failed in its duties  -- consider the philosophy of history
inbedded in the Book of Daniel or the concept, 'scourge of God').  This
meant that the faithful would not submit when in an inferior position, but
rather struggle on and await rescue by Divine Intervention as the saving/to
be saved remnant.  (one could speculate about the uncanny similarity of
this formula in action to the way microbes behave when confronted with
anti-biotics, but that would distract us too much from the topic at hand,
ADD people must struggle with temptations like this all the time).

Anyway, back to the explanation of the irony, (which is something like
trying to explain a joke, the fun seems to evaporate).   The irony is, that
actually existing Christianity, confident in its rightness, nay,
righteusness and divine ordination, went on to conquer nearly the whole
world, aided in no small degree by the extra power of its formula that
defeat does not neccessarily mean that one is wrong while blithely
believing that its victories were evidence of its rightness.  Eventually,
it shattered from its own success.  The contradiction that caused this is
well analysed by Max Weber in  _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism_.

The Christians (as well as religious Jews and Muslims -- all the people who
follow Abraham, Isaack, and Jackob a.k.a. Israel)  are now confronted by a
secular world order, which is trampling everything they hold sacred in the
way they trampled everything the conquered Pagan  peoples held sacred.  And
lo and behold, their language reverts to fundamentaly pagan concepts of
right and might -- or does it?  Meanwhile the forces of secularism,
confident in their superiority and vielding the material heritage of
Christendom continue to trample everything in sight with the idea that
might is right.

>The Hungarian nomads of the tenth century and their
>western expeditions would be a footnote in history books. Even less time
>would be spend on them than on the Huns! The Huns are gone and the
>Hungarians would have followed their example.

Pastoral nomadism, was a way of life ecologically adapted, (though not
completely -- not sustainably)  to conditions which were unsuitable to
neolithic horticulture.  With it, consciousness had come to be alienated
from the rest of nature, because animals and plants -- Nature in short --
had turned from beings to objects.  What we think of as civilization (a
word which I try to qualify whenever I'm forced to use it because I abhor
its built in positive -- and in my view -- illegitimately so, connotation)
arose out of the fact that this way of life was unsustainable, just as
capitalism is, because it was oriented to continous growth and chronic
aggression.  Eventually it had to collide with horticultural peoples.
Class societies arose when millitarily superior pastoral peoples conquered
matrifocal horticulturalists.  (See Gerda Lerner: _The Creation of
Patriarchy_)  The Hungarians and whoever their ancestors might have been,
seem to have the bad luck of always adopting a new way of life shortly
after it begins its decline.  Thus horse and cattle pastoralism was in its
heyday in 500 b.c. in the glory days of the Scythians, but the Hungarians
probably adopted it sometime in A.D.;  Christian feudalism  was just
beginning its four century slide to the Reformation, when the Hungarian
leaders installed it wholecloth as they found it without regard to local
factors.  Capitalism is about to enter its final crisis when we are jumping
right on the bandwagon. (Note: I left out communism a.k.a. 'actually
existing socialism' from this sequence because it was imposed on the nation
almost completely by outside forces, except that the quislings who went
along, also merely helped impose their view of the historically correct
path.) If we would learn from our folktales, we would recall that the
brother who selected the best looking horse down in that certain stable,
always lost.

>
>        Prince Geza and his son St. Stephen were men of vision; men who
>realized that the only road for survival was--to use a current
>phrase--"European integration." And by the way, comparing St. Stephen, the
>founder of the Kingdom of Hungary with Matyas Rakosi tasteless, in addition,
>lacking any historical basis.

But they also established the notion, that a good cause justifies any means.
Somehow I always think of Rakosi as a kind of anti-Matyas, sort of as in
anti-Christ.


>>Although in this case I don't know what was so mysterious.  A rego"s (bard)
>>or a ta'ltos (shaman) had certain traditional knowledge that I, for one,
>>would like to know more about -- it might help us see more clearly who we
>>really are.
>
>        Unfortunately, I don't remember the author's name but there was a
>well known historian (maybe late 19th century) who was expert on such
>things. In my first year of university in Budapest, I read several articles
>and books by him. So, if you want to know more about shamanism--there is
>plenty of information.

If you do recall that author sometime, please tell me.  Though I know a
little bit about shamanism as such, what I am interested in is the
Hungarian version circa 900 after it had absorbed the historical experience
of the previous couple centuries;  and also what little must remain of it
among more remote Magyar populations.  What exactly is a "Garabancias Diak"
?


> And of course, if as a personal hobby you want to be
>a shaman, that's fine with me, but somehow I don't think that the shamans'
>knowledge would be terribly useful to us, at least not in practical terms,
>at the moment.

I think you would be suprised.  But I do not mean we can take the formulas
and their explanations wholecloth and literally, instead we should try and
interpret them for our own situation, integrating what has been learned
since.  Shamans were the first artists and intellectuals.  Before writing
was invented, they were the memory and conscience of their social group.
We have much to learn from them about the world, about our past, and
ourselves.  (See Mircea Elidae and Joseph Campbell).

We (human beings) may differ vastly with respect to the amount of our
knowledge, but with respect to ignorance, our differences are negligable.
This is because the yet-to-be-known constitutes an uncountably infinite
set.

All the best,

Tibor Benke

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Many thanks for all the clarifications of the possible (most probable, I
should say) derivation of the Czech "segedinsky gulas" -- from a mis-
identification of a person's name, Szekely, with a place, Szeged.  Maybe
those "Bach hussars" who served in Hungary between 1849 and 1859 brought
back a taste for Mr. Szekely's invention (once again proving the old saw
that "necessity is the mother of invention," since it really is a delicious
dish).

I suspected that technically, it was a porkolt, rather than a gulas (btw,
in colloquial Czech at least the term porkolt is used, though to bring it
a little closer to Czech phonetic expectations, it's usually reproduced in
writing as "perkelt".  Isn't gulas more like a soup, than a stew, in the
"authentic" sense?

There is also a Czech dish (not haute cuisine by any means, the sort of
belly-filling fare found in Class III pubs, rather) called "debrecinsky
gulas" which is a paprika-flavoured soup/stew with cut up frankfurters
in it.

All these dishes are served with the Czech version of dumpling, which is
a raised-flour dough with cut-up rolls in it, called knedliky.  They are
shaped into long rolls, then boiled, and sliced with a thread into flat
round pieces.  Of course knedlik is also used as the word for the fruit-
filled dumplings served with butter, cheese, sugar, fried bread-crumbs,
etc.  Czechs also have the word "noky" which describes the gnocchi-style
pasta boiled in soup stock or water, but they are not often served, at least
as a side dish by themselves, and a Czech equivalent of the Slovak
"bryndzove halusky" -- what a treat, a great cold-weather comfort food! --
doesn't exist AFAIK.

The vagaries of food migrations make fascinating reading, and the extra
treat of having people share their own way of making them is even more fun.
Thanks again!

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Since the summer is here with a vengeance (at least in the area where I
am) and the sour cherries are in at the U-pick orchards, I remembered
fondly enjoying the Hungarian cold sour-cherry soup in Budapest the times
I was there.

Does anyone have a sure-fire, authentic, handed-down-from-grandmother,
unmeasured, a pinch of this a pinch of that, recipie for this soup?

Or even an adapted one taken from George Lang's or somebody else's cookbook?

Thanks!:-)

Gluttonously, but sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

At 08:38 PM 7/16/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote in response to Johanne:

>>For one thing, the main impetus for the
>>development of the western social welfare scheme, if I remember, was the
>>unrest and disillusionment with capitalism which was caused by the Great
>>Depression on the one hand, combined with fear that the Soviets would export
>>their revolution, on the other.
>
>Exactly.  However, take away the fear, especially the fear of violence and
>repression, of an exported Soviet style revolution and I wonder how
>effective the unrest and disillusionment with capitalism would have been.
>Who knows.  But, with the Soviet Union now gone, we may find out.

        I bet you keep your fingers crossed!

        Eva Balogh

At 09:26 PM 7/16/96 -0500, NPA wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>This fellow is very talented. He sees all sorts of connections we
>>ordinary mortals fail to see.
>
>Should I take it as a compliment? Once you mentioned to me something
>about the word "methodiza'la's" !
>
>Or is this privilege granted only to real historians?

        No, but it is granted to people who have some common sensical ideas
about possible connections and impossible connections. To people who can
distinguish between the important and the unimportant. To people who can
sieve through the evidence and decide which are worth investigating and
which are not. And, to people who are not looking for conspiracies which
allegedly govern historical events.

        Eva Balogh

At 06:05 PM 7/16/96 -0700, in an attempt to educate Zoli Szekely, Eva Balogh
wrote:

<snip>

>Yes, Russia
>was not as well developed as England or the United States but, by 1917,
>there was a global economy--said Joe Szalai.

I did not!  I don't use terms like 'global economy'.  Could you provide a
citation?  Readers of this list should know that this is the second time in
a week that you've attributed something to me that I didn't say.

I think it's good that you're outling the background of this discussion, but
if you confuse who said what, you lose credibility.

>The only thing is that Joe Szalai, Tibor
>Benke, and Eva Durant hate to admit that the cause of the bolshevik
>revolution was war weariness and economic exhaustion, instead of capitalism
>per se.

I'll admit it the day you admit that 1956 was a "szabadsa'gharc". ;-)

Joe Szalai

On 16 Jul 1996 16:34:23 GMT,  (Steven C.
Scheer) wrote:

>
>>Typical Hungarian receipe. :-) Whenever I asked my mother for a
-  snip ----------
........ Mine, of course, are always
>>inedible.


>Yes, yes, but in this case measurements *are* problematic.
>You need a little experience, but then measuring is more
>of a problem that it's worth. To tell you how much meat
>to grind for four patties would drive me nuts. I would
>actually have to go obtain the right amount of meat and then weigh
>it. All kidding aside, here's my recipe for four patties
>(and they almost always turn out more or less the same):
>
>I grind one half of a thick butterfly cut, first cut into
>one-inch pieces, in my Cuisinart. You may use meat already
>ground, pork or veal, but then use about what would make
>for a couple of hamburgers or so . . .

------------snip -----------------------------

I was, of course, just kidding. But your formula for fasirt (Stefania
szelet... isn't that what the big one with the hard-boiled egg in the
middle is called?) is wonderful. Rekindles fond memories.

Thanks,

Bandi


U.I. A smiley... The definition of fasirt in my 2-volume Magyar
Ertelmezo Keziszotar (Akademiai Kiado, 1992) is (tadah!): vagdalt hus.
:-). Hardly.
> =============================================================
      Andrew J. Rozsa - Birmingham, Alabama, USA
 < OR >  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
          Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
> =============================================================

Zoltan,   You are talking about babbling. Gosh, what would
                      you call your "essay" below? You sure have done your
                      share of babbling. I had a hard time staying awake
                      while reading your blah, blah, blah......
                      And the X & Y story! How sweet of you to not wanting
to
                      name names, --     don't be so coy!
                      The "radical left-winger ideologist" label is used
very
                      freely by you, do you really know what it means? You
                      are getting carried away. It does not fit X or Y at
all.
                      Would you consider yourself a "radical right-winger
                      ideologist?"

                                          Regina V. Kalvary

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You wrote all this :

From: Zoltan Szekely >
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 20:19:33 -0400
Message-ID: >

Who wrote this?

I promised you to discuss a little bit more these quotes of
a radical left-winger ideologist:

> "Withdrawal of tolerance from repressive movements before
> they can become active, intolerance EVEN TOWARD THOUGHT,
> OPINION AND WORD, and finally, intolerance in the opposite
> direction, that is toward the self-styled conservatives, to
> the political Right -- these ANTI-DEMOCRATIC notions respond
> to the actual development of the democratic society. (...)
> To be  sure, THIS IS CENSORSHIP, EVEN PRE-CENSORSHIP."
>
> "The tolerance (...) will never be gift of the powers that
> be; it can, under the prevailing conditions of tyranny by the
> majority, only be won by the sustained effort of RADICAL
> MINORITIES (...) -- minorities INTOLERANT, MILITANTLY
> INTOLERANT and disobedient to the rules of behavior which
> tolerate destruction and suppression."

YES, everyone was right who guessed these qoutes are from
Herbert Marcuse, the apostle of neo-marxism in the sixties
and seventies. (See eg. in Critical Sociology, edited by
Paul Converton, Penguin 1976, pages 320 and 328.)

I just found a very profound example for how to use these
ideological guidelines right here, on this discussion list.

So what follows here is THE EXAMPLE:

************************************************************
I don't want to call names. So let's name the 2 persons
involved in this example by X and Y.

X accused Y to be a nazi like this:
> But [Y] is a nazi! I spotted him as soon as I began reading the
> HIX publications more than two and a half years ago.
Is this really an accusation? Well, it seems to be. The
nazis killed a couple of million people and anybody called
to be a nazi is secretly said to be a potential mass
murderer. No question about it.

Let's see, how X explains his/her ardent accusations:
> The discussion centered
> around the Bolshevik revolution and I said something to the effect that
most
> likely the Bolshevik revolution would have taken place without the
outbreak
> of World War I. [Y] answered: the outbreak of the Bolshevik revolution
was
> decided when a Jewish banker loaned a few million dollars to Japan in
1904!
In another world, we see here, that Y maintained a highly
non-standard explanation regarding the outbreak of the Big
Bolshie Revolution in Russia in 1917. Maybe X found it a
"behavior which tolerates destruction and suppression." Why?
The hell knows. But X must have decided that Y tolerates
destruction and suppression by his views, because X
immediately withdrew tolerance from Y and showed up massive
"intolerance EVEN TOWARD THOUGHT, OPINION AND WORD".

See how X finishes his/her "proof":
> I immediately knew that I was talking to a man who ardently believes in
> international Jewish conspiracies.
That is Y "ardently believes in international Jewish conspiracies".
It is X's conclusion, just because Y has non-standard views
about a piece of history. Is it not ridiculous?

And also see the clear suggestion that X made about Y: Y
"believes in international Jewish conspiracies", therefore
Y is a nazi! Is it really that clear, that anybody that
"believes in international Jewish conspiracies" must be a
nazi, a potential mass murderer? I don't think so. And I
also doubt that non-standard views about the history
imply  "belief in international Jewish conspiracies". That's
just simple bullshit.

So what we reveal here is simply a kind of "INTOLERANT,
MILITANTLY INTOLERANT" bahavior from the side of X toward Y.
To be sure, this is not a behavior of a respected historian!
This is plain ideological babbling. Right on the track of
Mr. Marcuse.
***************************************************************

Take care,                                           Sz. Zoli

> I've just started learning  Hungarian as an auotdidact
> and I would like someone in this Newsgroup to help me
> with the following:
>
> Sajnos kave nincs / sajnos kavet nincs
>
> Which of the two sentences is correct??


The correct sentence is "sajnos kavi nincs" -- nominative.
Kavit is accusative (direct object).

Gabe

At 06:05 PM 7/16/96 -0700, you wrote:
>        Since we have been talking about food and food and food, I think the
>readers of this group must make sure that they read a wonderful piece about
>Hungarian food, Hungarian butcher shops, Hungarian sausages, etc. in today's
>Hirmondo. If you don't get it, I will be glad to copy it over.
>
>        Eva
>

        I am sorry, I goofed. It is not in the Hirmondo, which is written in
Hungarian but in Hungary Report and it is in English.

        Eva Balogh

At 09:32 PM 7/16/96 -0500, NPA wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>I call only nazis nazis.
>
>You mean, however is a member of the German style National Socialist
>Party. Is it true?
>
>NPA.

        No, anyone who holds ideas very similar to those of the national
socialists. Also, those who are outright antisemitic. Add to this, people
who think that Szalasi was the saviour of Hungary. You may also include
those who are now trying to whitewash Hitler's Germany when it comes to the
outbreak of the war. (One great Hungarian illuminary (MIEP member)
"discovered" that Hitler, after all, attacked the Soviet Union in
self-defense. The Soviet "war machine" was ready to run down Germany,
Romania, and HUNGARY within a week. Mr. Nemenyi was greatly impressed that
more and more fellow Hungarians are turning to "unorthodox sources.")

        Eva Balogh

Eva Balogh helps me out:

>         You are straying very far away from the original subject. Let me
> outline the background of this discussion.
Thanks for the detailed summarization of the past of this
discussion of really historical importance about the history.
It helped me a lot.

>         (1) Tibor Benke claimed that the excesses of capitalism were
> responsible for communism.
Communism as social system is exactly, what always used to be:
an utopia. The real question may be that what circumstances
made it possible to organize an effective political movement
in order to achieve a mere utopia?

I guess both the excesses of capitalism and the after-war
desparation played a role here. The ideological background
was developed under the pressure of the excesses of capitalism,
and the tactical realization of the revolution under the Russian
circumstances at the time.

One of the main points here is, that in Russia the Bolsheviks
took over the power in the social/working class movements from
the Mensheviks, and as a consequence, the violent way of thinking
and acting became dominant over the parlamentary/democratic way
of thinking and acting. Everything came from this: from Ulyanoff's
dominance and cruelty in the revolution and the civil war to
the decades of systematic terror under Djugashvili.

In Western Europe the social movements chose a different path.
They kept up the parlamentary/democratic way, and they could
really achieve something. To be sure, NOT the utopies, not the
"ideal society", but something real.

> The latest is Joe Szalai's confusion
> concerning the welfare state. He seems to forget that the bolshevik
> revolution occurred in 1917 and the welfare state as we know it is about
> thirty years old.
The idea of welfare state came as a very reasonable consequence
of the Western way of social movements. But in 1917 this idea
was not real. What happened after, in only a half century time
span, is a proof of the power of political movements rooted in
the reality: they are able to come up with a reasonable political
idea at the appropriate time. (Now, if this idea is not appropriate
any more, then I bet something new will come. No way back to the
"wild capitalism", not even in Hungary!)

>         (5) Finally Zoli Szekely's last sentence has nothing to do with this
> discussion:
> >My point is, that if anybody has a different view from
> >my views of the Russian Revolution, it still would not
> >make him automatically a conspirationist or a nazi.
>         Who said that someone with a different view of the Russian
> revolution is a nazi. Nobody.
Thanks God, I am relieved...

> Where you get the words "conspirationist" or "nazi," I wouldn't know,
> except you suspect that I label everybody a nazi, who disagrees with me.
I know it's not the case. But someone lose his job around here,
and I don't know why. Gossip has it, that because he was accused
of being a nazi, or something like that.

As the old-time rock group Illes (Szorenyi-Brody) sang:

"A szo veszelyes fegyver."
("The word is a dangerous weapon.")

Bye now,                                                 Sz. Zoli

Some parts of the discussion between Joe Szalai and Eva Balogh:

> >And how
> >about Zoltan Szekely?  Would you be happy if I put him in your camp as Gabor
> >Farkas appeared to put him in my "group"?
>
>         Zoltan Szekely? Well, he claims to be a social democrat. In fact, if
> I recall properly he even had some high position in the newly reconstructed
> Social Democratic Party. So, I don't know. Maybe he does belong to your
> group. We ought to ask him.
>
>         Eva Balogh
>
I'm sorry Ladies and Gentleman. I am not joining to any group.
Not even to the suggestion of D. Farkas.

Just for the record: the "newly reconstructed Social Democratic
Party" was killed by the communists and the liberals before it
had a chance to become a party. (By party I mean a REAL political
force.) My position in the party was not high. That's of it.

Bye now,                                               Sz. Zoli

Regina,

>    Zoltan,   You are talking about babbling. Gosh, what would
>        you call your "essay" below?
It's not an essay in any meaning. It's just a piece
of opinion.

>        And the X & Y story! How sweet of you to not wanting to
>        name names, --     don't be so coy!
So you could reveal the real names. I'm destroyed.

>        The "radical left-winger ideologist" label is used very
>        freely by you, do you really know what it means? You are
>        getting carried away. It does not fit X or Y at all.
If my memory does not cheat me, I used it for Herbert
Marcuse. Just check it, dear.
                                            Sz. Zoli

At 02:13 AM 7/17/96 -0700, Tibor Benke wrote, in answer to my post:

>>        I was afraid that this is what you meant! I find it incredible that
>>such half-baked ideas surface time and time again: "out there" as well as on
>>the HIX forums.
>
>It is possible that my ideas are, as you say, "half baked", if you mean
>that they are incomplete, not done.

        No, this is not what "half-baked" means. "Half-baked" means "lacking
in judgment, intelligence, or common sense." And that is what I meant. Not
that they are only semi-formulated.

>But I am afraid, this was just another
>put down.  On the other hand, it may also be true, that you only half
>understood them, due to difficulties I needn't expand on again.

        I'm terribly sorry, but I cannot take such ideas terribly seriously.
And why do you always say that the problem lies with your opponent: he/she
is just not intelligent enough to grasp the depth of your thoughts. Perhaps
the problem lies with your thoughts.

>>If St. Stephen and his father Prince Geza didn't succeed in
>>introducing Christianity you and I wouldn't be discussing the pros and cons
>>of "Christian Nationalist Populist" versus "Cosmopolitan, Liberal, Urbanite"
>>differences. We wouldn't be around. Hungary wouldn't be around, Hungarians
>>wouldn't be around.
>
>It is precisely here, that you miss my point.

        What point am I missing? That if they didn't introduce Christianity
the Hungarian tribes wouldn't have survived? I am almost sure that this is
the case.

>The Christianity they
>introduced was somewhat distorted by the time they introduced it and their
>methods of introduction distorted it further.

        Distorted in comparison to what? To the original Christians in the
Roman Empire? So, you would also claim that all "barbarians" who were
eventually converted to Christianity, including people, like the Germans,
Poles, the Finns, the Lithuanians, were receiving Christianity in a
distorted form and therefore something is wrong with their national development
?

>They [Geza and Stephen] were fortunate that they happenned to bet on the
>right course, history seems to have proven them right.  That is what I
>meant by the "Grace of God".

        They were not "fortunate." You act as if there was an equal, 50/50
chance of success: you bet on Christianity or you bet on Paganism, and my
golly, you are lucky: you happened to bet on Christianity. Practically all
of Europe was Christian by that time, the Hungarians were the odd men out.
It wasn't question of luck.

>But their methods were theologically inncorrect, to say the least. A true
>Christian would repent them.   What is more, even the results cannot be
>counted an unambigious success.

        Incorrect? You mean because they used force? Well, you know it is
like the Hungarian economy today. If you don't act, the whole national
economy might collapse. You cannot do anything else but change the structure
in a hurry. That was the case in Stephen's time. Moreover, you know his
opponents were not exactly little lambs either. Do you remember what
happened to St. Gellert? In case, you don't, they dragged him up in some
carriage to the top of what is St. Gellert Mountain in Buda and tossed him
down. He died!

>The naivite with which the majority of
>Hungarians adopted the ideas of Christendom lead to the relatively rapid
>demise of the Arpad dynasty, as the ruling families that knew the game for
>what it was, divided and weakened them.

        Forgive me but you don't know what you are talking about. It had
nothing to do with the way Stephen introduced Christianity. First of all,
the Arpad dynasty died out because the last Arpad died without issue. And,
the sentence that "the ruling families that knew the game for what it was,
divided and weakened them [meaning the Arpad dynasty]" is simply
incomprehensible. That was not the cause for the constant bickering between
crown and nobility.

>Also, the role adopted as "bastion
>of Western Civilization" cost dearly  and Western Civilization is not very
>grateful,

        Again, you are mixing up things. The Hungarians were simply trying
to defend themselves against a foreign power, the Ottoman Empire. The ideas
concerning the "bastion of Western Civilization," were later constructs.

[A long discourse on religion follows which I had no patience to read.]


>The Hungarians and whoever their ancestors might have been,
>seem to have the bad luck of always adopting a new way of life shortly
>after it begins its decline.  Thus horse and cattle pastoralism was in its
>heyday in 500 b.c. in the glory days of the Scythians, but the Hungarians
>probably adopted it sometime in A.D.;  Christian feudalism  was just
>beginning its four century slide to the Reformation, when the Hungarian
>leaders installed it wholecloth as they found it without regard to local
>factors.

        I have no patience or even competence to argue effectively against
all this, so, for the time being, I will assume that this is true; i.e., the
Hungarians are always behind times. That's the price of coming from where
they came from and settling where they settled. Underdevelopment.

>Capitalism is about to enter its final crisis when we are jumping
>right on the bandwagon.

        I admire how you can look into the future. Somehow I don't think
that you and I will witness capitalism's demise.

>>        Prince Geza and his son St. Stephen were men of vision; men who
>>realized that the only road for survival was--to use a current
>>phrase--"European integration." And by the way, comparing St. Stephen, the
>>founder of the Kingdom of Hungary with Matyas Rakosi tasteless, in addition,
>>lacking any historical basis.
>
>But they also established the notion, that a good cause justifies any means.

        You cannot read history backward and you can expect tenth- or
eleventh-century people behave as if they lived as far-left liberals and
socialists, people sensitive to the environment, equipped with modern
notions on religion, anthropology, and other "social sciences," all that at
the end of the twentieth century. This is unhistorical reasoning.



>>        Unfortunately, I don't remember the author's name but there was a
>>well known historian (maybe late 19th century) who was expert on such
>>things. In my first year of university in Budapest, I read several articles
>>and books by him. So, if you want to know more about shamanism--there is
>>plenty of information.
>
>If you do recall that author sometime, please tell me.

        The name might have been "Sebestyen."

>> And of course, if as a personal hobby you want to be
>>a shaman, that's fine with me, but somehow I don't think that the shamans'
>>knowledge would be terribly useful to us, at least not in practical terms,
>>at the moment.
>
>I think you would be suprised.

        I don't think so.

        Eva Balogh

Laszlo...you are correct I meant to say Objective not possessive. Sorry!
The exmaples are correct otherwise..Thanx, Peter

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Laszlo Balogh wrote:

> "Peter A. Soltesz" > wrote:
> >
> >Dear all:
> >
> >The correct is sajnos nincs kave!
> >
> >For those who like a quick explanation. The Hungarian language has
> >word endings which determinie the action to be taken with the root word.
>
> >For example -t (kavet) makes it possesive) meaning like give me coffee
> >Kerek egy kavet (I would like coffee please).
> >
> >Other exmaples are:  rugd ide a labda-t (kick the ball here -- where the
> root
> >word for ball is labda).
> >
> >Similarly - asztal (table) asztal-t (the table), asztal-ra (onto the
> table),
> >asztal-rol (from the table), asztal-on (on the table), etc.
> >
> >In effect by saying nincs kavet is similar to saying we do not have the
> a
> >coffee (or the coffee) it certainly is incorrect.
> >
> Peter Soltesz
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Peter:
>
> I'd have to disagree on this one, for the possesive has nothing to do
> with it, rather the " t " stands for Objective Case in the Hungarian
> grammar, which by the way most languages do not even have.
>
> Dr. Laszlo
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>

At 12:15 PM 7/17/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:

>> Where you get the words "conspirationist" or "nazi," I wouldn't know,
>> except you suspect that I label everybody a nazi, who disagrees with me.

>I know it's not the case. But someone lose his job around here,
>and I don't know why. Gossip has it, that because he was accused
>of being a nazi, or something like that.

        I knew that sooner or later we would end up here: poor Nemenyi and
his job. And the one or two or three terrible rats, liberals, of course,
among the contributors to Forum, who squealed on him. They called him a nazi
and he lost his job. I am sick and tired of listening to all these
insinuations. If Nemenyi insists on his story; i.e., that someone/someones
from one of these lists denounced him for his antisemitism at his workplace,
which happened to be the Argonne National Laboratory, he should name names.
Come out with them, instead whispering to each other's ears privately, while
publicly making barely veiled accusations at specific people.

>As the old-time rock group Illes (Szorenyi-Brody) sang:
>
>"A szo veszelyes fegyver."
>("The word is a dangerous weapon.")

        And this is absolutely profound; only a rock-singer could come with it.

        Eva Balogh

Dear Hugh, et al.

Hugh said:
There is also a Czech dish (not haute cuisine by any means, the sort of
belly-filling fare found in Class III pubs, rather) called "debrecinsky
gulas" which is a paprika-flavoured soup/stew with cut up frankfurters
in it.

Actually it is known as krumpli paprikas (potato paprikas) that usually
has kolbasz (or frankfurter type) meat in it as well. It is very simple
to make, quick, tasty and very filling. Besides you can store it in the
fridge as well!!!

Not everyhting is from Czechland or Slovakia thank you!!!
Peter Soltesz

BTW please keep in mind that lots of stuff originated by Hungarians were
"exported" and "adopted" by other peoples in the food department.
The age old arguments between Austria-Hungary on the "studel", the
Franco-Hungarian argument on the palacsinta (crepe ...) or the Croussant
(sp?)
and kifli. etc. So please be kind enough to desribe items and foods not
from where you may have necountered them but who invented them..Thanx.

Actually, the sajnos nincs kavem makes the kave his pressonal possession
(not an unknown custom) but the correct statement would be the
sajnalom nincs kavenk -- meaning sorry we do not have any coffee.
Peter Soltesz


On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, ANDREW ROZSA wrote:

> On 16 Jul 1996 13:30:36 GMT,  (Gyorgy
> Kovacs) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >Lacko/Kohn > wrote:
>
> >>If you want to say: I'm sorry, I don't have coffee.
> >>
> >>Margarita
> 
> >
> >
>
> >Sajnos nincs ka've'm.
> >Sajnos ka've'm nincs.
> >...."Sajnos" with "Sajna'lom,"   For "I am very sorry" replace "Sajnos" with
> "Nagyon
> >sajna'lom"
> >
> >If you want to say: "Sorry (I'm sorry, I'm very sorry), there is no coffe"
> >than the end of the sentence is "nincs ka've'" and if want to express that
 you
> >have other stuff but no coffee than "ka've' nincs".
> >
> >Did I leave out any other combinations? (Probably yes, but that's it for
 now.)
> >GK
>
> Just to confuse the foreigners:
>
>   Sajnalom, de kave, az nincs!
>
> =============================================================
>       Andrew J. Rozsa - Birmingham, Alabama, USA
>  < OR >  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>           Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
> =============================================================
>

In article >,
Peter Szaszvari > wrote:
>    (ANDREW ROZSA) wrote:
>>Just to confuse the foreigners:
>>  Sajna'lom, de ka've', az nincs!
>Good, we could go on with this:
>Sajna'lom, de ka've' sincs.
>Szaszvari Peter
     Ka've'? Sajna'lom, de az nincs!
GK

At 10:53 PM 7/16/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>>The only thing is that Joe Szalai, Tibor
>>Benke, and Eva Durant hate to admit that the cause of the bolshevik
>>revolution was war weariness and economic exhaustion, instead of capitalism
>>per se.
>
>I'll admit it the day you admit that 1956 was a "szabadsa'gharc". ;-)

        Oh, I admit. It was an "icipici szabadsagharc," and hardly anyone
calls it that.

        Eva Balogh

I am looking for Dr. Mauks and his three daughters, Kati, Lizi and
Zsuzsi. They moved from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Denver, Colorado,
USA, in the 50's. My mother Lenke painted oil portraits of the daughters
and is interested in contacting them.
Please notify me if you know anything about them.
Thanks,
Arpad

In article >, AND Books > wrote:
>5. Accusative for nouns is with a "-t" (e.g. vi'zet, tejet, pe'nzet stb)
>janos                                                       ^^^^^^^
However difficult it is to pronounce, the correct way is "pe'nzt"
GK

Now that we got on the subject of kolbasz....
There are many types:
Gyulai
Csabai
Veres (blood), etc.

In any case does anyone know of a Hungarian (or H. type) butcher shop
that makes Hungarian flavoured/type sausages in the Wash. DC area??

Peter Soltesz

Perhaps it ought to clarified better......
Sajnalom, de kave, az nincs! means that I am sorry but coffee we have
not! (or we have no coffee).
While the Sajnalom, de kave, az nincs!  imples that there may be other
drimks that are available except for coffee).
Peter Soltesz

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Peter Szaszvari wrote:

> In article >,
>     (ANDREW ROZSA) wrote:
> >Just to confuse the foreigners:
> >
> >  Sajnalom, de kave, az nincs!
> >
> Good, we coul go on with this:
>
> Sajnalom, de kave sincs.
>
>
> Szaszvari Peter
> (http://iap11.ethz.ch/users/szp/szp.htm)
>

At 12:37 PM 7/17/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote to Regina:
>Just check it, dear.
                                Sz. Zoli

        How typical, dear! Of course, one can use language like this if the
person is a woman. Isn't it so, dear?

        Eva Balogh

At 07:48 AM 7/17/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>At 08:38 PM 7/16/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote in response to Johanne:

>>Exactly.  However, take away the fear, especially the fear of violence and
>>repression, of an exported Soviet style revolution and I wonder how
>>effective the unrest and disillusionment with capitalism would have been.
>>Who knows.  But, with the Soviet Union now gone, we may find out.
>
>        I bet you keep your fingers crossed!

Oh good Lord!  Eva Balogh misunderstands me yet again.  Surely she must
think that I'm a cyberpatsy, a nincompoop who can easily be discombobulated.

Now why would I keep my fingers crossed?  I don't know what the future
holds.  Perhaps the unrest and disillusionment with capitalism will not be
ineffective.  Maybe fair wages, pensions, health care, public education,
safe working conditions, and the like, will all be things of the past.
Maybe they'll all be 'unaffordable'.  I may be utterly naive, but I always
hoped that our well-being, the way we care and support one another,
dependeds on more than just luck, on more than just keeping your fingers
crossed.

In a response to Tibor Benke, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        Incorrect? You mean because they used force? Well, you know it is
>like the Hungarian economy today. If you don't act, the whole national
>economy might collapse. You cannot do anything else but change the structure
>in a hurry.

What does Eva Balogh care about?  She wants quick, tough action to save the
Hungarian economy from collapse.  Let's say she has her way.  The Hungarian
economy is saved from ruin and it becomes a healthy, throbbing wonder to
behold.  Will there still be an elite?  Will there be even more impoverished
and marginalized people?  Will the number of unemployed and underemployed be
as high as it is today.  Will Hungary's economic health be the result of a
jobless recovery?  Will Eva Balogh ever tell us what her world view is?  I'm
sure whatever it is the elite will be pretty comfy.

Joe Szalai

>Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>For whom it was an ideal opportunity? For the Hungarians or for the
>>Communists?
>
>Communists? What communists? :-) You mean those young revolutionaries
>who were touched by the ideas of  the French Revolution, echoed  back
>from the past? Maybe, but 1848 for the Hungarians were a freedom fight!
>
>And the last sentence: does it mean that although the
>Hungarian events were not orchestrated by the communists, they were
>influenced by the Viennese events and the Viennese events were
>influenced by the communists? So, in brief, indirectly the Hungarian
>revolution was influenced by the communists?
>
>The last assumption seems logical, and just as enlighten as a "kifli"
>and other food names. :-)
>
>Andy also voiced his opinion:
>
>>It is a blessing in disguise that Peter A Nemenyi lost his job.At least
>>now we can read his eloquent writing either in Hugary or Forum.
>>Now he has all the time to educate us poor pots.
>
>If Andy does like my eloquent writing in Hugary, so be it! :-)
>Does Andy want a thread, why the job was lost? :-)
>
>NPA.
>
>No problem,just mail it:Andy

Eva Balogh wrote:

>No, but it is granted  to people  who have  some  common  sensical ideas
>about possible connections and impossible connections. To people who can
>distinguish between the important and the unimportant. To people who can
>sieve through the evidence and decide which are worth investigating and
>which are not. And, to people who are not looking for conspiracies which
>allegedly govern historical events.

I should have known, you were writing about yourself. That I call modesty!

>>You mean, however is a member of the German style National Socialist
>>Party. Is it true? >>NPA.

>No, anyone who holds ideas very similar to those of the national soci-
>alists.

Which means whoever holds similar ideas to those of the communists are
communist herself as well?  Like  practicing  denunciations,  causing
"csengofrasz" etc.? Whoever trying to twist the meaning  of  a freedom
fight, happened in 1956. Whoever praising a communist like Kiraly? Or
was he also nazi in the previous regime? Hmm I'm getting the message!

>Also, those who are outright antisemitic.

Wow, you mean there are lot's of arab nazis running around, hating each
other as well ? :-)

>Add to this, people who think that Szalasi was the saviour of Hungary.

You also mean, Szalasi was member of the German Nationalist Party?

>You may also include those who are now trying to whitewash Hitler's
>Germany when it comes to the outbreak of the war. (One great Hungarian
>illuminary (MIEP member) "discovered" that Hitler, after all, attacked
>the Soviet Union in self-defense.

I guess bigger historians tried successfuly this, than you, yourself. By
the way, I purchased a pretty good book in Puski's book store in Budapest
few weeks ego. The author's name Tibor Hernadi and the title of the book:
"A masodik vilaghaboru igaz tortenete". In that book Hernadi has the very
same idea. You mean Hernadi not only a nazi, but member of the MIEP.as well ?
So please let me know if you think, that Hernadi is a nazi and Puski also
a nazi letting such books into his store?!

>The Soviet "war machine" was ready to run down Germany, Romania, and
>HUNGARY within a week. Mr. Nemenyi was greatly impressed that more and more
>fellow Hungarians are turning to "unorthodox sources.")

About the [Soviet "war machine" ready to run down germany] there are quite
a lot's of good books written in different countries. There are plenty
enough documents as well. Shall we argue on this issue next?

>I knew that sooner or later we would end up here: poor Nemenyi and
>his job. And the one or two or three terrible rats, liberals, of course,
>among the contributors to Forum, who squealed on him. They called him a nazi
>and he lost his job. I am sick and tired of listening to all these
>insinuations. If Nemenyi insists on his story; i.e., that someone/someones
>from one of these lists denounced him for his antisemitism at his workplace,
>which happened to be the Argonne National Laboratory, he should name names.
>Come out with them, instead whispering to each other's ears privately, while
>publicly making barely veiled accusations at specific people.

You mean, Andy brought it up, just yesterday? Well, if I were you, I would
simply shut up. You know why! Because you just recently communicated an inside
mole at Argonne, spreading false accusations about my boss. You fed this infor-
mation to Gabor Fencsik, who under false name and a rented re mailer address
spreaded hatred on Forum. You left your trace at Argonne, communicating with
Istvan N. The story is not over yet, and be patient, your turn is coming in
due time!

Eva you are preaching tolerance, but you are busily snooping after others, so
you can harm them. You made few mistakes. When you contacted a Federal Lab,
you left traces. Plus someone who is in Budapest  right now, might have to
explain how he knew about  the Lab's HR.- decisions!
Furthermore, someone threatened to turn in  Mr. Szilagyi at the Hungarian Radio
Petofi. Do you have any idea who that rat was? And if my accusation such a fals
e
one, how come that, this rat did not go ahead with her plan? You might be
able to
explain...

NPA.

Just in case someone raising ethical and moral issue over the word "rat", must
be reminded, that there was a time, when people of tolerance in this platform
could call me simply a "nazi scum bag". Oh and one more thing. In some circles,
the stoolpigeon, squiller, also called a rat! Thank you.

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>My point is, that if anybody has a different view from
>my views of the Russian Revolution, it still would not
>make him automatically a conspirationist or a nazi.
>
>

It does when his version blames western financiers with Jewish names for
underwriting the cost of said revolution. All we need to complete the John
Birch trifecta are oblique mutterings about the evil doings of the
Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Whatever
happened to blaming the Czarist court, and after them the Mensheviks, for
being such a pack of inept clowns that when the Bolsheviks took over by
force, everyone pretty much sat back figuring they couldn't be any worse
than the last bunch running the place? Of course, by the time they found
out differently, it was too late. Lots to ponder here, especially when you
consider what happened in Hungary during the same time frame. By the way,
Zoli, I think the moral bases of revolutionary action evaporate like a
snowball in hell the minute the revolutionaries start lining their
adversaries -- trade unionists, big land owners, intellectuals, village
priests, what have you -- up against the wall and shooting them. Bela Kun
and his pals and Gyula Gombos and his played that little game with equal
vigor.
Sam Stowe

"When you find the one you might become,
Remember part of me is you..."
 -- "Simple Song", Lyle Lovett

At 03:52 AM 7/17/96 GMT, Bandi Rozsa wrote:
>U.I. A smiley... The definition of fasirt in my 2-volume Magyar
>Ertelmezo Keziszotar (Akademiai Kiado, 1992) is (tadah!): vagdalt hus.
>:-). Hardly.

        You have *a two-volume Magyar Ertelmezo Keziszotar*? I am jelous. My
old one (first edition) is only one volume.

        Eva Balogh

AND Books ) wrote:

>don't over-analyze this thing!

>1. The hungarian word for coffee iz "k.v."
>2. The noun ka've' stands as all nouns (e.g. vi'z, tej, pe'nz stb)
>3. Possessive for nouns is with an "-m" (e.g. vi'zem, tejem, pe'nzem stb)
                                              ^^^^^^^^
Vizem (without the accent).

>4. Dative for nouns is with a "-d" (e.g. vi'zed, tejed, pe'nzed stb)

Again: vized.

>5. Accusative for nouns is with a "-t" (e.g. vi'zet, tejet, pe'nzet stb)

Again: vizet, and the form pe'nzet is funny, it should be pe'nzt.

Well, Hungarian is simple:

Nominative: to' , so' , lo'
Accusative tavat, so't, lovat

Logical, isn't it? ;-)

Andras

In article > Zsoter Andras,
 writes:
>Nominative: to' , so' , lo'
>Accusative tavat, so't, lovat

>Logical, isn't it? ;-)

Also:
kerik --> kerekes
fenik --> fenekes
derik --> derekas  ;-)

Tamas

At 06:05 PM 7/16/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>At 10:42 PM 7/15/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>>Is it just a coincidence that the attack on the social
>>programmes in the West happened just as the Soviet system was collapsing?
>
>        Oh, I understand, it is a conspiracy of capitalists. The Soviet
>system collapsed and therefore, we don't have to keep up pretenses! Is that
>it? For Pete's sake, there is no connection between the two whatsoever. Hard
>economic reality makes the changes necessary.

You were a university student in Budapest in 1956.  After the Hungarian
Revolution you continued your education in Canada and the United States.
You became the dean of one of the colleges at Yale.  I don't begrudge you
any of that.  But please, please, please, don't lecture me about "hard
economic reality", because when you do, you sound like Marie Antoinette.

Joe Szalai

At 03:47 PM 7/17/96 -0500, NPA wrote:

>>>You mean, however is a member of the German style National Socialist
>>>Party. Is it true? >>NPA.
>
>>No, anyone who holds ideas very similar to those of the national soci-
>>alists.
>
>Which means whoever holds similar ideas to those of the communists are
>communist herself as well?

        In case that "herself" got there by design, I would like to see how
possibly my ideas have anything to do with communism. A far cry from it.

>Like  practicing  denunciations,  causing
>"csengofrasz" etc.?

        You are getting very close to libel, my fellow. I told you, come out
with it! Tell the world that I wrote to the Department of Energy and the
Argonne National Laboratory to make them fire you!!! Especially since I
didn't even know that the Department of Energy had anything to do with the
Argonne National Laboratory, and it was only a week before your quitting
your job that I learned through this list that your employer is the Argonne
National Laboratory. Go ahead! Give the necessary proof!

>Whoever trying to twist the meaning  of  a freedom
>fight, happened in 1956.

        You are an idiot, like Andras Szucs, and unfortunately, stupidity
cannot be helped.

>Whoever praising a communist like Kiraly? Or
>was he also nazi in the previous regime? Hmm I'm getting the message!

        I have known Bela Kiraly personally for at least thirty years. I
worked with him as a historian and as a fellow member of the American
Association of Hungarian History. I don't think that he was a communist, and
I don't think that he was a nazi.


>>Also, those who are outright antisemitic.
>
>Wow, you mean there are lot's of arab nazis running around, hating each
>other as well ? :-)

        Don't play the innocent, please!


>>Add to this, people who think that Szalasi was the saviour of Hungary.
>
>You also mean, Szalasi was member of the German Nationalist Party?

        Again, don't take the readers of this list for idiots.

>>You may also include those who are now trying to whitewash Hitler's
>>Germany when it comes to the outbreak of the war. (One great Hungarian
>>illuminary (MIEP member) "discovered" that Hitler, after all, attacked
>>the Soviet Union in self-defense.
>
>I guess bigger historians tried successfuly this, than you, yourself. By
>the way, I purchased a pretty good book in Puski's book store in Budapest
>few weeks ego. The author's name Tibor Hernadi and the title of the book:
>"A masodik vilaghaboru igaz tortenete". In that book Hernadi has the very
>same idea.

        I have never heard of Tibor Hernadi, but I am always suspicious of
books which title is "The True History of This and That." As for Mr. Puski,
I have the feeling that Mr. Puski is not exactly a moderate liberal. What I
see is that his publishing house publishes a lot of books, dealing with
topics of that sort.

>You mean Hernadi not only a nazi, but member of the MIEP.as well ?

        I don't claim anything of the sort, I have never heard of Mr.
Hernadi, and I have no idea of his party affiliation. I was talking about a
young man on the Forum who is a MIEP member and who mentioned about the
Soviet war mashine's readiness to attack Germany. The whole thing is
ridiculous, of course. The Soviet Union's military establishment was
devastated by Stalin, and, as the events of the future showed, they were
uncapable to defending their own country, let alone attacking anyone. Where
was that famous war machine? Oh, yes, I forgot! According to the young MIEP
members, thousands of planes burned up, while facing West! In a row!

>So please let me know if you think, that Hernadi is a nazi and Puski also
>a nazi letting such books into his store?!

        I wonder.

>>I knew that sooner or later we would end up here: poor Nemenyi and
>>his job. And the one or two or three terrible rats, liberals, of course,
>>among the contributors to Forum, who squealed on him. They called him a nazi
>>and he lost his job. I am sick and tired of listening to all these
>>insinuations. If Nemenyi insists on his story; i.e., that someone/someones
>>from one of these lists denounced him for his antisemitism at his workplace,
>>which happened to be the Argonne National Laboratory, he should name names.
>>Come out with them, instead whispering to each other's ears privately, while
>>publicly making barely veiled accusations at specific people.
>
>You mean, Andy brought it up, just yesterday? Well, if I were you, I would
>simply shut up. You know why!

        No, I don't know why I should shut up.

>Because you just recently communicated an inside
>mole at Argonne, spreading false accusations about my boss.

        Yes, I approached a fellow Hungarian who works at Argonne National
Laboratory and I asked him to find out the truth about your firing.
Considering that you and your friends were accusing people, including me, of
being behind that firing, I had every right to try to find out the truth. My
contact (whose name I received from another Forum correspondent) told me
that, yes, you were in trouble over the use of the computer for private use
and that your boss was also fired because he didn't stop your activities.

>You fed this infor-
>mation to Gabor Fencsik, who under false name and a rented re mailer address
>spreaded hatred on Forum.

        I certainly shared this information with those people who were
directly or indirectly accused by you and your friends of the evil deed:
Gabor Elek, Gabor Farkas, Andras Kornai, and Gabor Fencsik. Again, I don't
think that I did anything which was apprehensible.

>You left your trace at Argonne, communicating with
>Istvan N.

        If Istvan N. felt compelled to tell you that I inquired about you,
that's fine with me. I have absolutely nothing to hide.

>The story is not over yet, and be patient, your turn is coming in
>due time!

        I am shaking in my boots!

>Eva you are preaching tolerance, but you are busily snooping after others, so
>you can harm them.

        I had every right to inquire about the truth, since you told the
whole world about "those rats." Of course, openly you didn't accuse anyone
but there were enough insinuations to besmearch the names of several people
associated with the Forum, past and present, including mine. All your
right-wing friends, and even those, who don't sympathize with your world
view, were horrified at the idea that anyone could do such an awful thing as
to make you lose your job. Meanwhile, you didn't offer a shred of evidence.
People were spending weeks at guessing games: who could it be? Don't you
think that under these circumstances the poor victims have some rights too?
Like trying to find out the truth? Unfortunately, we still don't know the
truth, while you go on and on with your accusations. The latest announcement
on your part was that you know who the culprit/culprits is/are, and X. and
Y. also know who they are. And when someone from Hungary announced that he
also knows who they are, your reaction was something like this: "Oh, so it
got to you, too?" So, I gather that you keep dropping names to your friends
as the denouncers, and your friends drop the same names to their friends,
and so on and so forth. Don't you think that under these circumstances it is
not you who is the victim but those people who, only on the basis of your
accusation, were supposed to have denounced you? More and more it looks that
we are the real victims, not you.
        As for your assumption that I was snooping around to harm people!
Whom should I want to harm? You? You are already gone from Argonne National
Laboratory: you didn't even wait for the investigation of your activities,
you quit! Surely, I can't harm you any more. However, it seems to me that
you can harm people plenty! And you still do!

>You made few mistakes. When you contacted a Federal Lab,
>you left traces.

        I have never asked Istvan N. to keep our correspondence a secret.

>Plus someone who is in Budapest  right now, might have to
>explain how he knew about  the Lab's HR.- decisions!
>Furthermore, someone threatened to turn in  Mr. Szilagyi at the Hungarian Radi
o
>Petofi. Do you have any idea who that rat was? And if my accusation such a
false
>one, how come that, this rat did not go ahead with her plan? You might be
>able to
>explain...

        No, I am unable to explain any of the above. I did contact Istvan N.
and I got some information from him. That's all I know.

        I am an absolutely straighforward person and I have nothing to hide.
I also have an extremely low opinion of people who play the kind of games
you play on the Forum: pointing fingers at certain people, without offering
any proof. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

        Eva Balogh

At 01:50 PM 7/17/96 -0400, Sam Stowe, while practicing a pontifical stance,
writes to Zoltan Szekely:

>By the way,
>Zoli, I think the moral bases of revolutionary action evaporate like a
>snowball in hell the minute the revolutionaries start lining their
>adversaries -- trade unionists, big land owners, intellectuals, village
>priests, what have you -- up against the wall and shooting them.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Sam.  But I forgot something.  Maybe
you can help.  Do you remember what year the American revolutionaries were
canonized?

Joe Szalai

At 07:31 PM 7/17/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>You were a university student in Budapest in 1956.  After the Hungarian
>Revolution you continued your education in Canada and the United States.
>You became the dean of one of the colleges at Yale.  I don't begrudge you
>any of that.  But please, please, please, don't lecture me about "hard
>economic reality", because when you do, you sound like Marie Antoinette.

        Marie Antoinette? It just shows how little you know about life in
general. I, like every other Hungarian refugee, started life in Canada with
a gift of $5.00 to start a new life. Most of us, including me, didn't speak
a word of English. My first job was waitressing in the nurses' cafeteria in
a TB sanatorium in Ottawa. When the Hungarian TB patients arrived, the chief
dietician, who didn't like me very much, ordered me to carry food to the
Hungarian TB patients and when she could see on my face that I wasn't too
enthralled with getting into contact with TB patients, she looked at me hard
in the eye and said: "Your people!" My pay was $90.00 a month and room and
board in the basement of the sanatorium. Two other Hungarian university
students worked alongside with me, Peter and Klari.

       My next job was upstairs maid with a millionaire family from Montreal
which spent a month at Gaspe. I don't quite remember the salary but I think
it was $60.00 plus room and board. I cleaned bathrooms and bedrooms, but on
Wednesday afternoons I served dinner to the family. Frightening prospect.

        After a month I got back to Ottawa and I had no job. Then a
Hungarian friend mentioned me to an Austrian librarian and the Austrian
librarian suggested that I try my luck at the Canadian Library Association.
I went there, with some difficulty filled out the application form, and the
general secretary of the CLA was kind enough to give me a job. I think, she
felt sorry for me. My salary was $150.00. In those days, you could rent an
apartment for $80.00, so, that was out of the question. Eventually, a friend
of mine and I rented a room with a Hungarian family and cooked dinner for
ourselves in their kitchen. She made less than I made: she was getting
$110.00 because she was an apprentice at a film studio, doing animation.
(Later became a well-known director at the Canadian Filmboard.)

        I worked at the Canadian Library Association for two and a half
years. I typed, I was in charge of sending out parcels (to this day I still
can do beautiful parcels), I was in charge of the stamp machine, and, I was
in charge of bringing the coffeee for everbody twice a day. After awhile I
took some night courses at Carleton University: Philosophy 100, English 100.
They were a real experience. We didn't understand a word of any of the
lectures. The Hungarian students were failing right and left these courses
because of language difficulties. I was the only one who passed--it wasn't
exactly an A but I passed and considering that I was unable to read Chaucer
in the original, I was unable to read Chaucer in modern translation, and
considering that one of the compulsory question was: translate this and this
passage from Middle English to Modern English and tell who the storyteller
is, I guess, I did OK.

        After two and a half years at CLA, I worked two years in a
bookstore. My top salary was $52.50 a week. It was at that time that I felt
that my English was good enough to enter college full time. I did. But I
didn't have $500.00 in the bank to pay for the tuition. I paid $250.00 and I
prayed. There was no stipend, there was no scholarship, there was no
nothing. I was so, so poor that year that I couldn't afford a cup of coffee
and I had difficulty to put a 15 cent stamp on the letters to my parents. In
the second term, I got $300.00 bursary money. During the summer, I managed
to get a job at the university library and although I was in charge of
ordering books for the history department, the chief librarian announced
that because I was a student, she would pay me only $1.00/hour, the minimum
wage. I couldn't save any money for next year's tuition. I could go on and on.

        Graduate student days were not exactly a picnic and my first job at
Yale was $4.500.00 for three courses. That was considered to be a half-time
appointment.

        So, please, don't tell me about what is like to be poor. I finished
all my education without any help from may parents. I began a new life, at
the age of 20, completely alone and not knowing the language. So, plesase,
don't lecture me about not understanding what's like to be poor and downtrodden
.

        Eva Balogh

In article >,  says...
>
>Re what to see and do in Budapest:
>
>There's lots of great things, as A. Herringer's msg mentions.  But most
of
>those things involve "consuming" Budapest (nothing wrong with that).
But
>if you want to actually experience Budapest (to "be in it"), and can
only
>do one thing, there's no contest:  go to one, more--or better yet,
all--of
>the Turkish baths.  There you won't be checking anything off a list,
>you'll just lay in the water and see the real Hungarians, in all their
>often-flabby authenticity.  (Re the flabbiness, I refer you to Steven
>Scheer's earlier msg about how anything cooked without lard is
considered
>"imitation Hungarian.")  The baths are just terrific.  You don't have to
>ask yourself what am I thinking, feeling, how am I responding to this.
>You just lie there, and Hungary comes to you.
>
>Only time for one?  Skip the Gellert, beautiful though it is--it's
packed
>with tourists.  Head for the Lukacs, check out the sanitarium section as
>well as the baths.  Spend at least a couple of hours there.  If you
start
>to feel bored before then (you shouldn't), you're still back home.  When
>all done, walk across the Margaret Bridge into Pest, head up Pozsonyi
utca
>a couple of blocks and have dinner at a restaurant called the Kiskakukk.
>
>Then, if you want to go the same clubs you'll find anywhere else in the
>world, fine.  But don't say you've been to Hungary till you've had a
bath.
>
>Burian

Arthur, I have grown up in Budapest (as you know from your research) but
have never been in a Turkish bath, neither did I talk to anyone who was!

I will try it on my next visit - or is it only for males?

Agnes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
> [...]
>         Graduate student days were not exactly a picnic and my first job at
> Yale was $4.500.00 for three courses. That was considered to be a half-time
> appointment.
>
>         So, please, don't tell me about what is like to be poor. I finished
> all my education without any help from may parents. I began a new life, at
> the age of 20, completely alone and not knowing the language. So, plesase,
> don't lecture me about not understanding what's like to be poor and
> downtrodden.

 Well with all due respect, all those hardships could only teach you
what's that like in Northern America (which just happens to be the richest
part of the world), not what it was (is) in Hungary.
 Any-one saying to us who started back home that making $4.5K has made you
understanding just proves that it really hasn't.

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMe2RI8Q/4s87M5ohAQHG8gH7BTOaDb6gyaZ5HLss5Vt96dAnU6flq/kb
SEejSSzxW5Il21A/CiOwtqmlQbKfZ7o22LG9hNO7cGLuycw8AihoDA==
=5k6f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 05:40 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        Marie Antoinette? It just shows how little you know about life in
>general.

Thank you.

<snip Eva Balogh's C.V.>

>        So, please, don't tell me about what is like to be poor. I finished
>all my education without any help from may parents. I began a new life, at
>the age of 20, completely alone and not knowing the language. So, plesase,
>don't lecture me about not understanding what's like to be poor and
downtrodden.

I believe I told you that I don't begrudge anything in your past.  And I was
not lecteuring you about not understanding what it's like to be poor.

You say that I know very little in life.  That's true.  However, after
reading your CV I have a better understanding of the positions you take on
the economy in general and social programmes in particular.  You 'hit
bottom' upon your arrival in Canada.  You "began a new life, at the age of
20, completely alone and not knowing the language."  And you did it all
without any social assistance.  And that's about as much social assistance
you're prepared to give to others.  A big nothing!

Other people 'bottomed out' differently.  Since you shared a little of your
past, I'll share a little of mine.  My parents came to Canada at the same
time as you did.  They were older than you and their combined education
level did not equal yours.  They also had 4, young, dependent children.  And
they couldn't speak a word of English.

But they managed to feed and cloth us.  My father opened a barber shop and
made next to no money for a year or two, and really not much after that.  My
mother cleaned and cooked for other people during the day, and at night,
when the climate allowed, she and my older brother would go and pick dew
worms till 4 or 5 in the morning.  It was very hard work but on a good
night, when there were lot of worms, the money was very good.  There were
several summers when my mother went to work in the tobacco fields of
south-western Ontario.  We'd see her only a couple times during the summer,
but the money she made was good.  My father was not very healthy and died of
lung cancer in 1963.  My mother's options were even less after that.  But we
survived.  I even managed to get a university education.

The only black spot on our past in Canada is that my parents received
welfare for several months while they were struggling to get on their feet.
My quarrel with you, Eva, is that if you were the city official to deceide
if my parents should get welfare you probably would have denied them.  After
all, your knowledge of the world informs you that everyone who wants to, can
make it on their own.  You did!  So why should it be different for anyone else?

But what do I know with my limited knowledge of life.

Joe Szalai

Gabe Bokor wrote:
>
> > I've just started learning  Hungarian as an auotdidact
> > and I would like someone in this Newsgroup to help me
> > with the following:
> >
> > Sajnos kave nincs / sajnos kavet nincs
> >
> > Which of the two sentences is correct??
>
> The correct sentence is "sajnos kavi nincs" -- nominative.
> Kavit is accusative (direct object).
>
> GabeGabe!!

The hack with the coffee! How did you manage to write the accented
letters?

Jo'zsi Hill (Udvarhelyi)

It was a nice tradition of ancient Olympiads that fighting of opposing
parties was suspended for the period of the Games. Now, in light of the
coming Olympic events, I wish to suggest the contributors of HUNGARY list to
bury the hatchet for two weeks and to concentrate on the Games.

As in the time zone of Hungary the most important events (finals, etc.) will
happen during the night, I want to ask overseas contributors of this list,
who are in a more convenient position in this respect, to keep European
Hungarians up to date with the events of the Games, particularly with the
results of Hungarian athletes. I hope the Hungarian team will win several
shiny medals that can be celebrated jointly by the Hungarians on both sides
of the Atlantic (and all over the World).

Gyorgy Bardosi > has compiled a list of www-sites
dealing with the events of Olympic Games, and sent it to the mailing list of
Ferencvarosi Torna Club >. With his consent, part
of his letter is reproduced here (the Internet-addresses will be valuable
for non-Hungarian readers of the list, too, I apologise for not having
translated the letter):

>---------------------------------------------
>X-Listname: Forum a Ferencvarosi Torna Clubrol
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:36:04 +0200
>From: Gyorgy Bardosi >
>To: 
>Subject: Re: Olimpia Second Edition
>---------------------------------------------
>Sziasztok!
>
>On Mon, 15 Jul 1996  wrote:
>
>>      Keresek olyan www c!met, ahol az eredmenyek on-line megvannak. Nem
>>      csak a donto, hanem mondjuk az elofutamok, selejtezok eredmenyei is
>>      azonnal latszanak ...
>
>
>Utananeztem a dolognak es [...] osszeszedtem egy parat.
>Eleg szep kinalat van beloluk legyen energiatok vegig nezni :)
>Bar hajnalban a kozvetitesek alatt egy-egy reklam idejere alkalmas
>kikapcsolodas. Lassuk:
>
>- A hivatalos olimpiai oldal
>                http://www.atlanta.olympic.org
>
>- A Nemzetkozi Olimpiai Bizottsag Home-Page:
>                http://www.olympic.org
>
>- Atlanta Games - egy kotetlenebb forma
>                http://www.atlantagames.com/
>
>- PointCast online szolgaltatasa percre pontos eredmenyeket iger.
>                http://www.pointcast.com/
>
>- Itt megnezhetitek az osszes eddigi olimpia minden(?) adatat. Meg nem
>volt idom ellenorizni, hogy valoban ott van-e minden. :)
>                http://sports.eb.com/
>
>- Egy kicsit omlesztve:
>
>http://cnn.com/SPORTS/OLYMPICS/ - CNN
>http://www.olympics.nbc.com/ - NBC
>http://www.usatoday.com/olympics/olyfront.htm - USA Today
>http://pathfinder.com/si/athens/olyhome.html - Sports Illustrated Online
>http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/ - Yahoo
>http://www.msnbc.com/specials/olympics/default.htm - MSNBC
>http://ESPNET.SportsZone.com/editors/atlanta96/ - ESPN SportZone
>http://www.sportsline.com/u/olympics/index.html - SportsLine
>
>Ezek mellett meg kb. millio dolog szol az olimpiarol.
>Kivancsi leszek, hogy mennyire fogom elerni ezeket az adatokat a Jatekok
>alatt. Biztos megfexenek a serverek egy kicsit. :)
>
>Sziasztok!                              --- Bardosi Gyorgy ---
>---------------------------------------------

Thank you, George Bardosi.

HAJRA' MAGYAROK!!!

                                        George Jalsovszky